L&L 3/05 - Save or Die!

[Gundark]

Save or Die could take effect when and character or monsters is bloodied.

The only issue is that it makes Bloodied a very dangerous condition to be in.

...and it's good to see Mike back on L&L

 

[Oni]

Save or Die could take effect when and character or monsters is bloodied.

The only issue is that it makes Bloodied a very dangerous condition to be in.

And subsequently lead to demands that the healer take care of every last nick, scratch, and booboo immediately.

 

[jbear]

I chose Monte's proposed system.

I don't mind the idea of save or die existing in the game. I just don't want it to reach a stage where PCs lives become trivial. So a system that limits the effect to when PCs are very badly damaged sits well with me.

If a medusa has to hit you first before it turns you to stone, then the medusa will have to use smart tactics as well before it turns you, sneaky attacks and hiding in its twisted lair before turning its powerful gaze upon you. It can't just kill you "bam!"

This gives PCs a chance to be sneaky before battle to trap the medusa before they get hurt.

It gives them a chance to high tail it before the turning begins if things go wrong.

It gives them a chance to find out stuff like this before they go a hunting into its lair, because finding out stuff like this will MATTER.

I also like the limitations it puts on wizards/spell casters. This way they often rely on their fighters so that their magic is effective.

I like how high vs low level and low vs high level synthesises so a medusa is more dangerous instant kill threat to lower level pcs but can still kill possibly kill higher level pcs but with more of an effort. And the same will apply to wizard's spells.

Two issue I do see:
Is there going to be a neat way to track % of hps so that when these special death attacks occur it is a simple matter to calculate if a death save is needed on the fly or is the game going to grind to a halt as the player does the math off the top of their head?

Will the limit placed on wizard spells ability to instant kill lead to a lot of metagaming so as to calculate the amount of HPs a monster has left or will there be a gamey mechanic introduced/put in place like 'bloodied' that the DM declares and so the players know this.

Which if the latter was the case, many people (not myself) who dislike the strong game mechanics involved in 4e will surely dislike something like this also. As I am someone who likes good game mechanics, as I like to think of D&D as a game that I play, this wouldn't be an issue for me. But I sense it would be for many who prefer the game mechanics to intrude as little as possible.

Or am I off base?

 

[Gundark]

And subsequently lead to demands that the healer take care of every last nick, scratch, and booboo immediately.

Or leads to a lot more resting

 

[Oni]

I dislike the proposed method in the blog, btw. I think it forces you to have to guess the oppositions current HP state, which renders such powers fairly useless for PC but less so for the DM causing a weirdly imbalanced situation, or it forces too much transparency which highlights the mechanics and the gamey nature of things, and would undoubtedly be a problem for a great number of people.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

All spells must have a secondary effect that is also useful against a tougher opponent. So it can be take damage, check if you are below xx hp.
Or it can be, slowed, check if you are bewlow yy hp.

 

[delericho]

I'm stunned. For a change, a Legends & Lore article that actually makes me more enthusiastic for the new edition. My hit points must be low - I failed to get an Extended Rest last night.

I quite like the idea put forward in the article. I'm not sure, though, whether it's better as "if the attack leaves you below X hit points, save or die" or if it's better as "if the attack does more than X damage, save or die". (Or, how about this - the spell causes a lesser effect normally, but if it scores a critical hit, it becomes save or die?)

I think perhaps it's also a mistake tying everything to hit points. It sounds to me like the game may well benefit from a "mental analogue" to hit points - another pool that is used to ward off domination, fear effects, insanity, and the like.

 

[Daven]

I dislike save-or-die effects. I feel unfair that PCs can take spells like these, but the DM should care to choose monsters without SoD, or to create wizard enemies without SoD, just to prevent frequent deaths (if story is important).
I don't care about medusas, or super-poisons.
If a sword can chop your head, if fire can roast you, I don't understand why swords and fire just take away your HPs, instead poison or medusa gaze must kill you at the one moment.
HPs are there to prevent death, removing HPs is the answer to every attack.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

There is already a dying mechanic, would that not work for the Medusa? Every round you fight her make a save vs. dying, when you hit three fails you're turned to stone. Adjust to taste. The effect could get slowly worse after each fail, if you like, but I disliked the progressive effects from 4E that got wiped away by a single save (I'd rather see you move up the track - like disease - or simply avoid moving down the track).

 

[Quickleaf]

I dislike the proposed method in the blog, btw. I think it forces you to have to guess the oppositions current HP state, which renders such powers fairly useless for PC but less so for the DM causing a weirdly imbalanced situation, or it forces too much transparency which highlights the mechanics and the gamey nature of things, and would undoubtedly be a problem for a great number of people.

I totally agree with you. Both for the reasons you list, and because I think Mearls proposed HP threshold is only appropriate to the fiction of some monsters (eg. Ghouls) but not most monsters (eg. banshee, medusa).

Maybe the press for 5e is to move away from "exceptions based design", but that is one thing I really like about 4e, you could design three monsters each with a "save or die" effect, and have each play out very differently at the table.

For example, banshees might force those in their keening aura to make death saves, making PCs who had recent lethal scrapes more susceptible - this fits the necromantic "closeness to death" theme of the banshee.

Medusa might use a "save and then die", similar to how they're presented in 4e. You don't turn to stone instantly and your allies have a round or two to try and save you.

And ghouls could use the "HP threshold" that Mearls posted about, meaning ghouls prefer to pick off weaker characters (wounded or frail).

Each of these approaches has a different feel and suggests different tactics for the players to adopt.